Canon EOS R6 Mark III & RF 45 F1.2 STM November 6
- EOS Bodies
- 684 Replies
I agree, I have a few lenses that are outrageously sharp. They far out resolve the sensors on my R6ii and R5, even with teleconverters. This aligns with their respective theoretical MFT curves. However, I would never say that any of my lenses are sharper than their theoretical MFT chart scores. How would I validate it without lab testing my lenses and a large range of other lenses also? However, it is reasonable for me to estimate, seeing my results in Lightroom, I can say that they are probably close or similar to that value.I'm curious, how do you compare your copy of a lens to online tests of other copies or different lenses? People use different cameras, and take pictures of different things. Some of them do it better than others.
The only time I was confidently able to say that my copy of a lens was sharper than an online test was with my EF-M 18-150, where Bryan/TDP posted the usual shots of his 'enhanced ISO-12233' charts and I tested my copy of that lens on an equivalent camera (M2 vs M, essentially the same sensor), and I have the same charts that he uses. In that case, he bought another copy and tested that and it gave results similar to mine (i.e. better than his first copy). Even though I have the same charts, he uses a 45-50 MP 5-series camera for his testing, and I don't. Comparing the sharpness of even the same test chart shot with an R1 vs. an R5 won't enable me to determine the relative sharpness of my copy of an RF or EF lens vs. his.
It's not too difficult to spot results from a poor copy of a lens, but IMO confidently distinguishing between 'good' copies of a lens or comparing one lens to another requires testing both lenses under the same conditions. I don't see how one can take pictures with their lens and declare that their lens is sharper than other copies based on pictures posted by someone else online (the pictures may be sharper, but there is more that goes into a picture posted online than just the lens...subject, focus, processing, downsampling, etc.).
If you put your copy of the 70-200/2.8 II on an optical bench and quantified parameters like MTF, field curvature, etc., and compared those to data published by LensRentals for multiple copies of the same lens, that would be a valid comparison demonstrating that your lens is sharper.
I also have a copy of the ef 70-200/2.8 LIS II, I bought it new back when it was a "just released" new model and it cost me a fair penny. It's a specific lens that I am very familiar with. On my 5DII/III it was an amazingly sharp lens. I also loved it's contrast, colour rendition, it's superlative AF and excellent IS. Great with a 1.4x TC III but not so great with a 2x TC III. It always needed a whole extra stop of aperture to sharpen up that lens to acceptable levels. It's image quality seemed to deteriorate close to it's Min focus distance than at infinity focus. Which is something that's rarely noted in lens reviews. I used it a lot with my old 5DIII's with their softer and less resolved sensor. I still have this lens and I use it far less than I used to. It's still nice to use on My R6ii and R5. It's big and heavy, I'm not using that aperture / focal length much these days. I really should get around to side grading it to a RF lens, maybe I'd use it more. However, It's no where near as sharp as my ef 100-400mm II LIS at 400mm. With a 1.4x TC it's nearly as sharp at 300mm and natively it's as sharp at 200mm. But I'd never say that it was "wozers" sharp! So for my copy, I can hand on heart say that it out resolved the 5DIII sensor. But the R6ii substantially out resolves the 5DIII and my R5 comfortably out resolves every sensor except the 5DSR. I can honestly say that the ef 70-200/2.8 LIS II is a sharp lens, probably as sharp as it's RF counterpart. However, there are a lot of copy variations and most of these have substantially lower MFT curves than their theoretical plots might suggest. The new RF 70-200mm f2.8 Z lens looks very impressive, I'm sure this is a lens that also follows closely to it's theoretical chart scores.
I have lenses like my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II which seem seems to align with their theoretical MFT plots and lead me to belive these lenses are built very close to their theoretical values. However, one major caveat..... my sensors are not yet matching or exceeding the resolution of these lenses. Where as the 5DIII (and I suggest the R3) are hardly taxing their lenses much at all compared to what a R5/R5ii will.
It reminds me of recent conversation i had with a "professional" events photographer that was hired by a family and came to my local Church (even though I run the photography for this particular parish). He reliably informed me that his ef 70-200mm f2.8 LIS was one of the sharpest lenses Canon had ever made and his particaulr one was cherry picked and was one of the sharpest. He was also running 5DIII's and I didn't dare show him my kit bag or lens inventory. However, he ended up using a lot of my images in his portfolio he sent to his client (I made them available for him for free).
I never got to see his magic unicorn sharp lens....I suspect that I never will. I'll take measured MFT's as a guide over hyperboles every time. However, what he did do for me is to remind me that I needed to "up the quality" of my business cards....lol!
Upvote
0
! All recent photos (insects and this one) are handhold with support from the terrain.
.
